Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Tomtomkent]

Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight.

And yet, even amateur marksmen manage to draw beads on printed targets of the same size, or smaller, over equal or greater distances, with iron sights.

I have not held a gun since I was a cadet, but this does not sound like a taxing shot, and I have trouble understanding why you think something the size of a human head would appear so much smaller than the fine point of an iron sight, over such a distance.

Please show your calculations.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent, when I say "probe", I am referring to a malleable rod used for the specific purpose of gunshot wound examinations. If the tracheotomy was probed, then that implies knowledge of the original small bullet wound there.

Then you need to supply better evidence that was HOW and WHY the wound was probed, as it is not unusual for wounds to be probed in an autopsy procedure. It is how, for example, one might ensure that an attempted surgical procedure really did open an airway, and did not meet further complications, or an obstruction...

 

[Tomtomkent]

In fact, I can find no reference to a procedure that suggests probes are exclusively used for bullet wounds in a post mortem or autopsy. Given the wide variety of probes, in differing sizes and models, I think MicahJava, you need to be very precise in your reference...

 

[MicahJava]

"Oh wait. RFK was turning to shake hands, exposing his head, ear and all?

Maybe in the universe where his fatal wound was in front of his ear rather than behind it? Is Sirhan both the flash and Stretch Armstrong?

And the 'powder burn' is not as conclusive of distance as conspiracy theorists describe? My mistake, obviously I have learned the folly of falsely attributed quotes, which will only serve to make me look foolish, and willing to believe any old conspiracy theory. Allow me to apologise profusely for this meaningless side track." -MicahJava

What are you on about? Think about the macro universe inhabited by the dainty gun powder particle exiting the barrel of a gun. By every single witness account, Sirhan's gun was not anywhere close to his head. For a particle of gunpowder, you may as well be discussing hitting the moon with a wrist-rocket. Ballistics experiments indicated that RFK's fatal head wound must have been fired from no more than an inch and a half (they fired bullets behind pig's ears, an inch and a half matched perfectly).

Dan Moldea and Mel Ayton- who from what I understand are the only two researchers that have written books attempting to refute the evidence for conspiracy- both agree that RFK's fatal head shot came from that close. But they think Sirhan did it. What crazy world does Moldea and Ayton live in? Imagine you're at an outdoor party, and lightning strikes right in the middle of the crowd. Would you believe that nobody in the crowd of the party caught a glimpse of that bolt of lightning out of the corner of their eye? Except with RFK, the party is centered on him- everybody was looking at RFK because he's RFK. And instead of a bolt of lightning, it's a person walking up and shooting him in the head. Nobody saw that? Everybody just happened to miss the moment where Sirhan stretched his arm to shoot RFK behind the ear?

Of course, this is just my layman's knowledge. People like the late Lynn Mangan have developed even more complex proofs for conspiracy in the RFK case.

 

[MicahJava]

And yet, even amateur marksmen manage to draw beads on printed targets of the same size, or smaller, over equal or greater distances, with iron sights.

I have not held a gun since I was a cadet, but this does not sound like a taxing shot, and I have trouble understanding why you think something the size of a human head would appear so much smaller than the fine point of an iron sight, over such a distance.

Please show your calculations.

No, I am not doing that again. Every time you guys choose to forget one of a few things:

1. It was an elevated shot.

2. The limousine was moving somewhat horizontally as well as vertically.

3. It was a moving target.

4. the limousine slowed abruptly.

5. There weren't an infinite amount of chances.

 

[abaddon]

Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window. I maintain that this is an important question even though I also tend to assume the 6.5 fragments in evidence were used in the shooting due to the presence of human blood/tissue.

Yes, even with iron sights. Yes, we have done this borked notion to death over the life of this thread. Yes, we have seen that you have not the foggiest what you are talking about.

No, you do not get a free fringe reset. No, we are not going over it yet again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window. I maintain that this is an important question even though I also tend to assume the 6.5 fragments in evidence were used in the shooting due to the presence of human blood/tissue.

So it would have been an impossible shot for anyone? Or just Oswald?

LOL. CTists and their "anyone but Oswald" mentality.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I am not doing that again. Every time you guys choose to forget one of a few things:

1. It was an elevated shot.

2. The limousine was moving somewhat horizontally as well as vertically.

3. It was a moving target.

4. the limousine slowed abruptly.

5. There weren't an infinite amount of chances.

You "aren't doing it again", but you haven't done it once yet. You have not supplied any calculations to support your assertion of how small the target looked. Which leaves us with no reason to presume that JFK's head was smaller than an ants, or that it was too small to hit.

As I mentioned before, it has been decades before I looked down the sights of a rifle, but allow me to address your apparent complications, and if anybody with more experience wants to tell me where I go wrong, I will defer to their knowledge:

Oswald was able to rest his rifle. The downwards angle of the shot was reasonable, and no more difficult than those faced by competent marksmen in situations every day (and having the high ground is a tactical advantage). The movement of the target was well within his frame of reference, and well within his angle of fire. Hey, let's even grant you that it offered some level of difficulty to the shot, because he missed once out of his three shots, hit a body mass with the second, before hitting a third. Why... that sounds like he took all those complications into account, and adjusted his aim as he did so, within the finite window of opportunity.

Now, please, by all means throw more diversions up there to try and gain distance from your failing arguments about the autopsy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Maybe in the universe where his fatal wound was in front of his ear rather than behind it? Is Sirhan both the flash and Stretch Armstrong?

Thank you proving my point about the meaningless sidetrack.

 

[bknight]

IMO this thread concerns the assassination of JFK, pertinent comments should be restricted to that train of though. If you want to discuss RFK, start a new thread.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I am not doing that again. Every time you guys choose to forget one of a few things:

1. It was an elevated shot.

Why is this an issue?

2. The limousine was moving somewhat horizontally as well as vertically.

Why is this an issue? How fast was the limo moving relative to Oswald?

3. It was a moving target.

Why is this an issue?

4. the limousine slowed abruptly.

You just said that moving was an issue. Now slowing is?

5. There weren't an infinite amount of chances.

How many chances did it take Oswald?

Was it an impossible shot for everyone? Or just Oswald?

You don't have to run away (or "go to work" as you call it) your entire life, MicahJava. Try being honest and answering for a change.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I’m pretty sure MicahJava asked “even with iron sights”, then listed five reasons iron sights are a better chance than a scope.

 

[traxy]

Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window. I maintain that this is an important question even though I also tend to assume the 6.5 fragments in evidence were used in the shooting due to the presence of human blood/tissue.

You're wrong.

The shots have been duplicated a bunch of times over the years. Both Marine Corps marksmanship experts that testified to the Warren Commission said that the shooting feat was easy given Oswald's training, equipment and the distance from the target.

There is a certain element of luck involved in the last shot hitting where it did, but if you consider Oswald was likely aiming for center mass on all 3 shots, the headshot would only have been a foot high.

 

[pgwenthold]

You're wrong.

The shots have been duplicated a bunch of times over the years. Both Marine Corps marksmanship experts that testified to the Warren Commission said that the shooting feat was easy given Oswald's training, equipment and the distance from the target.

There is a certain element of luck involved in the last shot hitting where it did, but if you consider Oswald was likely aiming for center mass on all 3 shots, the headshot would only have been a foot high.

If you assume he was aiming for the head, the second shot would have been low. If he was aiming for the back, his third shot was high. And his first shot missed altogether.

How is that a great shot?

 

[Axxman300]

"Just look at how easy it would be for Sirhan shoot RFK while only standing a few feet away! To hell with your powder burns behind the ear!" -Axxman

Dude, when you finally get into Bigfoot you'll be much happier. It will get outside into the fresh air.

 

[Axxman300]

It's continuously difficult for me to track the autopsy timeline in the face of so much contradictory evidence. Doug Horne theorized that the throat wound was discovered by the autopsy doctors at 11:00 - 11:45 PM, which may be close enough to midnight to justify the 11/23/1963 date on Dr. Humes' handwritten note (and, after all, Dr. Perry recalled a second later phone call that Humes never mentioned). Still trying to completely reconcile all of the evidence now that I understand that the Gawler's team Joe Hagan, John Van Hoesen, and Tom Robinson all recalled viewing the autopsy from the very beginning at 8:00 PM.

But, of course, all that is an appendix compared to the fact that so many witness stated the autopsy doctors discussed the original throat wound at the autopsy and even probed it.

The Barnum diary is dated 11/29/1963, it mentions a back wound and possibly that it came from a bullet which exited the throat, and yet the only publicly available information about the existence of a back wound came a few days later in December. You could try saying that Barnum somehow overheard some people in Bethesda discussing the autopsy, but at that point why not accept his story about Dr. Burkley coming in and discussing the autopsy findings among them "around midnight"?

This written record should not exist if it comes from 11/29/1963, and yet it does.

Not that you even need Barnum's written summary of events to acknowledge the other evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound.

Nobody cares.

They knew after they had called Parkland that the throat wound was a bullet hole. They knew the back wound was an entrance wound, and there was no bullet inside of the body.

It's not even up for debate.

 

[Axxman300]

Even with the iron sights?

ESPECIALLY WITH IRON SIGHTS. 300 feet? are you kidding me? You would have to be mostly blind to miss the shot.

I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult,

Really, based on what? Your 12 years as a Delta Force Sniper? The years spent hunting hogs with your dad in the Ozarks?

partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight.

Oh, I get it, you've never fired a weapon of any kind.

People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window.

This is not true. Having been to the building and stood on the 6th floor I can state this is a lie.

I maintain that this is an important question even though I also tend to assume the 6.5 fragments in evidence were used in the shooting due to the presence of human blood/tissue.

Weird, me too, because the only weapon used was a 6.5x52mm Carcano. Case closed.

 

[Axxman300]

No, I am not doing that again.

Don't fool yourself, you never did it the first time.

Every time you guys choose to forget one of a few things:

Comedy ensues.

1. It was an elevated shot.

Making it hard how? Have you ever seen a guard tower before? They're kinda on the tall side for a reason.

2. The limousine was moving somewhat horizontally as well as vertically.

Not enough to make a difference, not at that range, not with that gun.

3. It was a moving target.

Relative to Oswald, not really. He had a relatively stationary sight picture long enough to make two shots.

4. the limousine slowed abruptly.

And that made the shot harder?

5. There weren't an infinite amount of chances.

Oswald was 2 for 3.

Circular logic is circular.

 

[Axxman300]

It's continuously difficult for me to track the autopsy timeline in the face of so much contradictory evidence.

No, not contradictory evidence, contradictory statements and testimony. None of which is significant. The body left Dallas, went to Bethesda, was autopsied, processed for burial, released to lie in state, and buried, and then reburied.

That's it.

Doug Horne theorized...

Neat. Not the same as knowing something for a fact, is it?

But, of course, all that is an appendix compared to the fact that so many witness stated the autopsy doctors discussed the original throat wound at the autopsy and even probed it.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. So what?

The Barnum diary is dated 11/29/1963, it mentions a back wound and possibly that it came from a bullet which exited the throat, and yet the only publicly available information about the existence of a back wound came a few days later in December. You could try saying that Barnum somehow overheard some people in Bethesda discussing the autopsy, but at that point why not accept his story about Dr. Burkley coming in and discussing the autopsy findings among them "around midnight"?

The thing you ignore is that Bethesda is a U.S. Army Hospital. If you're in the Army you have to shoot, even doctors have to qualify, and the rank and file certainly maintian their basic skills...because it's the Army.

What you are missing here is a bunch of Army medical professionals putting the back entrance wound and the throat wound together based on their knowledge of ballistics, and their personal experience on the shooting range. In 1963 they all would have qualified with the M-1, which is .762.

Not that you even need Barnum's written summary of events to acknowledge the other evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound.

And yet they didn't...as witnessed by Humes calling Parkland.

 

[MicahJava]

The thing you ignore is that Bethesda is a U.S. Army Hospital. If you're in the Army you have to shoot, even doctors have to qualify, and the rank and file certainly maintian their basic skills...because it's the Army.

What you are missing here is a bunch of Army medical professionals putting the back entrance wound and the throat wound together based on their knowledge of ballistics, and their personal experience on the shooting range. In 1963 they all would have qualified with the M-1, which is .762.



And yet they didn't...as witnessed by Humes calling Parkland.

Axxman, only autopsy participants and people involved in the investigation knew about the back wound. Barnum should not have known about the back wound on 11/29/1963 unless his story is true or something pretty darn close to it is true. And that was a written personal journal intended for his children to grow up to read. No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account.